Author Topic: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks  (Read 1630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kru

  • Guest
Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:39:35 PM »
ok, something i would like to suggest for BFG to change is the RSP value of the ships that attack territories.

Now, don't cry about this as i will TRY to cover all angels, and i hope BFG will listen AND respond.

Instead of the RSP value of the fleets attacking being based on the RSP value of the player at the specific percentile, change it so the wormhole attacking fleet is based on the RSP of fleet defending.

Now, for example, if a fleet defending has an RSP value of 10 million, make it so the wormhole fleet has an RSP value of approx 3 x (so 30 million) RSP.

If a player is attacking a territory at gains control they tend to loose that very quickly and be unable to contemplate attacking, this in turn means they cannot gain much in the way of rescources to better equip their own fleet.

As an example, i myself held a territory with:00:11:32  (12:42:13)
   
   Return    Military Territory ‎    MQ-9 Reaper    
Icon_athena_classx40000

and the dam thing attacked with this:

Encounter Military Territory [3:58:14e] has:
RESOURCES:
* ore: 0 
* crystal: 0 
* hydrogen: 0 
================================
Total plunder: 0 (0 carm / 0 herc / 0 atlas)
(19025188 Dios / 76100749 Zags)

TERRITORY'S SHIPS:
* Artemis Class Fighter: 10,632,277
* Atlas Class Cargo: 10,013,392
* Erebus Class Fighter: 5,962,246
* Zagreus Class Recycler: 3,261,772
* Hercules Class Cargo: 3,322,676
* Dionysus Class Recycler: 1,678,114
* Curetes Class Cruiser: 885,995
* Poseidon Class Cruiser: 1,579,999
* Carmanor Class Cargo: 969,574
* Moros Class Battleship: 452,265
* Athena Class Battleship: 956,134
* Ares Class Bomber: 168,520
* Hades Class Battleship: 366,582
* Prometheus Class Destroyer: 313,694
* Thanatos Class Destroyer: 124,200
Now, the with the wormhole speeds of attack, it still for the most part makes it unlikely that many people would be able to send the extra ships to GD with.

so the pro's:

1) players of all ranks are able to gain and hold territories
2) players are able to profit form the bonuses
3) players are gaining rescources propportionaly to their fleet and fleet RSP instead of the RSP of the player capped at the relevant percentile
4) more rescources for more players means more need to spend for more people

Cons:

1) some players will attempt to hold with minimal RSP (such as a probe)

To combat the above, i would also like to suggest that BFG add/include a feature which stipulates that:
a) territory binuses will not be activated unless a minamum RSP is present
b) territory wormhole attacks will follow the principle of point a

My overall point is that many players who can attack some territories simply do not stand a chance.  Group attacking is not really an option as many players will not contribute fleets to an attacker who is able to cover the attack for no loss.

Same rank players group attacking is also not really an option given the RSP caps on territories that exist.

I beleieve reducing the RSP of the attacking fleet to match by an approximation of 3x RSP of the defending fleet will have a more significant effect on players being able to take advantage of the territories, the bonuses and the rescources.

Offline Matt H

  • Blue Frog Gaming
  • Member
  • Posts: 4408
  • Community Manager
    • View Profile
    • Blue Frog Gaming
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2013, 01:38:15 PM »
Quote
Instead of the RSP value of the fleets attacking being based on the RSP value of the player at the specific percentile, change it so the wormhole attacking fleet is based on the RSP of fleet defending.

This already occurs.
Connect with BFG:
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Official Website
  |
  |  
  |  
  |  
  |  
Connect with me:
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Skype

kru

  • Guest
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2013, 01:48:53 PM »
This already occurs.

really?

well i don't think its working matt, tell me how would a player hitting a territory with 30k athena stand a chance against the fleet that attacked back?

I mean that wormhole attack (which is the espi) had over 100k thans

kru

  • Guest
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2013, 01:50:08 PM »
This already occurs.

as stated, i group defended the territory with 40k athena (the espi report is the wormhole fleet attacking)

Return    Military Territory ‎    MQ-9 Reaper   
Icon_athena_classx40000

and the dam thing attacked with this:

Encounter Military Territory [3:58:14e] has:
RESOURCES:
* ore: 0
* crystal: 0
* hydrogen: 0
================================
Total plunder: 0 (0 carm / 0 herc / 0 atlas)
(19025188 Dios / 76100749 Zags)

TERRITORY'S SHIPS:
* Artemis Class Fighter: 10,632,277
* Atlas Class Cargo: 10,013,392
* Erebus Class Fighter: 5,962,246
* Zagreus Class Recycler: 3,261,772
* Hercules Class Cargo: 3,322,676
* Dionysus Class Recycler: 1,678,114
* Curetes Class Cruiser: 885,995
* Poseidon Class Cruiser: 1,579,999
* Carmanor Class Cargo: 969,574
* Moros Class Battleship: 452,265
* Athena Class Battleship: 956,134
* Ares Class Bomber: 168,520
* Hades Class Battleship: 366,582
* Prometheus Class Destroyer: 313,694
* Thanatos Class Destroyer: 124,200

so how does that really compare?

Vastet

  • Guest
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2013, 02:08:19 PM »
"This already occurs."

That's literally impossible. It didn't matter if I had a probe or 500,000 Thans and 2k Zeus, the attacking fleets were ALWAYS in the 300M RSP range the week before I quit.

Offline Xsel

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2013, 03:43:56 PM »
I have an idea since territory's are getting so big why don't put dsp for it so they can become more profitable for players maybe that will bring some more people to the uni and keep some people because everyone is leaving the uni

Offline Zarchne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2013, 06:19:39 PM »
Giving DSP for NPCs would make me sad.

Offline Azureflames

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2013, 06:46:58 PM »
What's the point in NPCs giving DSP? It just turns DSP into a measurement of activity. DSP should be a reflection of PvP.

Why would you want DSP for destroying NPCs anyway? I would think that no one would care about DSP if you could get it from NPCs. It just doesn't mean anything at that point since it's so easy to get.

kru

  • Guest
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2013, 07:47:36 PM »
well conquest is fcuked then, dsp there is a testiment as to who can spend the most.

fleets aren't built, they are bought (well the hydro is) and they are protected by extensive P mode use (or suspensions)

right now (as at time of writing) 36% of the top 100 on dsp or either (p) or (s)

Earlier it was closer to 60%. later it will be back to 60%......In conquest, dsp is relevant to apersons activity, actually its like that in all unis :/

The more active you are at probing/attacking the more dsp you acquire. 

Whilst i disagree 100% with your description, i agree 100% that npcs should NOT or EVER again contribute dsp

Offline Pantin

  • Member
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2013, 07:51:06 PM »
Why would you want DSP for destroying NPCs anyway? I would think that no one would care about DSP if you could get it from NPCs. It just doesn't mean anything at that point since it's so easy to get.

You'd be surprised. People want rewards even (especially) if they didn't have to work for it. The fact that it becomes a meaningless value, is, well, meaningless to them. They still get their pinatas so they're happy.

Mephistopheles

  • Guest
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2013, 09:37:32 PM »
BFG says that the attacking wormhole aliens are based on the RSP of the player defending. I say this impossible as the first military territory I hit since the beginning weeks of the game was easy as it had not been hit since I colonized the system months ago (I am alone in that system). the attacking force was so massive even a week later and 3x the fleet or more that I had then and I am still unable to even come close to attacking it again.

My fleet points currently are  6,798,103 and my fleet is 3 time bigger than then, the fleet points for the attacking force was  63,995,547 and the rsp value of the attacking fleet was 890,866,676 my fleet RSP value currently is 193,445,944. hell my total RSP is 258,907,920 points.

my question is how is this even remotely realistic, fair, reasonable and even desirable?

If I continue to build more ships (if I can somehow magic up trillions of OCH) (BFG's answer) eventually I will be able to hit territories again, but soon after I will be bumped up to hitting nothing as has been shown in the past by many others. This problem is the same in every type of territory. The problem being resources as NPCs are not profitable in any manner unless you are smoking crack as the hydro cost to launch is more they the total value of the NPC. from the NPCs I have bothered to espi the whole fleet would have to be launched costing 50 million hydro or more, value of npc 4 million hydro and 6 mil ore and 3 mil crystal. this is not even taking into account loses which would be very high.

Another good question would be. how many BFG employees are playing conquest? I doubt very many as they would have to get free credits to play because it costs too much to afford on their wages. and the enjoyment would be virtually zero due to the design of the game and the technical problems like freezing attacks, etc., but they say it is working correctly as they designed.....LOL OMG that MUST be a joke! I cannot believe that they agree that this is a good game and well designed at this point.



Offline well done

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2013, 10:45:03 PM »
Another good question would be. how many BFG employees are playing conquest?

the secrets out  :-X matt awarded 10k thanatos to his account and thats what bumped up the wormhole fleets ...... or was it jasons account ?  ;)

Offline Azureflames

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2013, 10:57:39 PM »
Earlier it was closer to 60%. later it will be back to 60%......In conquest, dsp is relevant to apersons activity, actually its like that in all unis :/

The more active you are at probing/attacking the more dsp you acquire. 

It's true to a point but not entirely. Kim currently has the most DSP and he is not the most active player. He does protect himself with p mode every day but he is far from the most active player. Most days I don't even think he launches his fleet.

Mass probing and launching is only so effective. What's more effective is finding players who might be good targets and then learning their schedules/keeping an eye on them. Yes it takes time but there are more skills involved than simply time. I've spent days where I've had a lot of time and probed every potential target within 50-60 systems of each of my colonies and it's more of a time waster than anything.

I'm currently #4 on DSP and a lot of my DSP has come from finding times in peoples schedules where they are prone to letting their timers pop up. When I find a decent opening I time my heph to land in that opening and launch in-system attacks. One of my big hits came from a reverse ninja on a member of a group attack on me.

To say that activity = dsp on conquest is completely unfair and undermines the players who have acquired it. Time is not the limiting factor on dsp.

The real problem with DSP in conquest right now is that I think a lot of it has come from people intentionally crashing ships. Recently people have been getting reporting for it but I think a lot ship crashing has slipped under the radar. It wouldn't surprise if everyone in the top 10 has been the recipient of one or more fleet crashes. The impact of course varies from player to player.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 11:11:21 PM by Azureflames »

Offline Pantin

  • Member
  • Posts: 836
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2013, 02:06:24 AM »
I'll have to somewhat disagree with Azureflames on this. Yes DSP takes into account players' skills, but I've seen way way way too many average or barely above average players be in the top DSP wise to ever agree fully with you.

There was a guerrier portefeuille in Nova that stayed #1 DSP for most of the Uni and his skills were pretty basic. He's gone now, I hear he lost it all. :)

From my days in SDE, I had alliance members that were among the top in DSP, one of them was oracle locking noob's transports left and right, the other barely knew how to run a sim on fleet compositions.


Offline Azureflames

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Suggested changes to conquest NPC Territory Attacks
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2013, 03:22:36 AM »
My experience only extends to Conquest so I can't speak about other unis.